Endpoint Discover

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond naming ffuf. It omits that this is an active, noisy, authorization-requiring scan, and says nothing about resumption via from_token or rate/impact considerations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, correctly placing the action and target first. It is arguably too terse for the tool's complexity, but nothing in it is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the definition still leaves major gaps: no usage routing against wayback_discover, no disclosure that this is an active fuzzing scan, and no behavioral context for a tool with zero annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so url, wordlist, and from_token are already fully documented in the schema (including the raft-* list names and the resume semantics of from_token). The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (fuzz) and resource (common paths on a URL) and names the underlying engine (ffuf), so the agent knows this is path/endpoint brute-forcing. It does not differentiate from the sibling wayback_discover, which also surfaces endpoints, leaving some overlap unresolved.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no when-to-use context: nothing about when to prefer this over wayback_discover or http_probe, no prerequisites, and no mention of authorization or scan-noise expectations. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.